DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species 1 (fig.1) in the reply filed on 1/29/2026 was previously acknowledged (see 2/24/2026 Office action). Claims 14-16, 19 and 20 remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim 1 limitation “a fixed component” is unclear as to what element the component is to be fixed relative to and in what manner. Note that applicant’s gear (41) labeled/disclosed to be the fixed component is actually free to move at least rotationally such that it is not completely fixed in all possible ways as currently broadly claimed.
The limitation “the fixed structure” (claims 17 and 18) lacks proper antecedent basis noting applicant’s 5/22/2026 deletion of the term from claim 1 and replacement with “housing” therein.
The remaining claims depend from the above and are thus similarly unclear/rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto US6564662.
The prior art structures bolded below appear to inherently meet the functions/properties italicized below in accordance with MPEP §2112.01(I) and MPEP §2114, which states that where the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure, the PTO may presume claimed functions/properties to be inherently capable thereto, thus presenting a prima facie case and properly shifting the burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art and provide evidence to the contrary.
Claim 1. A disconnection mechanism, for engaging or disengaging a fixed component (241a/242a) and a movable component (252) arranged on a first shaft (251) extending in a first direction, the disconnection mechanism comprising: a shift fork ( “shift fork” col.4, l.21 – col.5, l.37), configured to be connected to the movable component, the shift fork being constructed to be able to reciprocate linearly in the first direction, so that the movable component is engaged with or disengaged from the fixed component (fork linear reciprocation is inherent from linear arrangement shown in fig.3, e.g., 252 is arranged to be reciprocated linearly by linear reciprocation of the fork there against at 252a); an actuator (82/83; or 82/83/75/85), comprising an eccentric output end (end of 83 eccentric/offset from 821), the eccentric output end rotating about a rotation axis (axis of 821) of the actuator at a distance from the rotation axis; and a drive rod (84) having a first end (end of 84 connected to 83) rotatably connected to the eccentric output end and a second end (end of 84 connected to shift fork via 62) rotatably connected to the shift fork, so that the eccentric output end, when rotating, is able to drive the shift fork to reciprocate linearly (again, the fork linear reciprocation is inherent from linear arrangement shown in fig.3, e.g., 252 is arranged to be reciprocated linearly by linear reciprocation of the fork there against at 252a).
Claim 13. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 1, further comprising at least one of a first position sensor (one of 75 and 85) for judging whether the output end has rotated into position, and a second position sensor (another one of 75 and 85) for judging whether the shift fork has moved into position, wherein the first position sensor is arranged inside the actuator (the actuator being considered to be 82/83/75/85).
Claims 1-3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Imao US6062097.
The prior art structures bolded below appear to inherently meet the functions/properties italicized below in accordance with MPEP §2112.01(I) and MPEP §2114, which states that where the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure, the PTO may presume claimed functions/properties to be inherently capable thereto, thus presenting a prima facie case and properly shifting the burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art and provide evidence to the contrary.
Claim 1. A disconnection mechanism, for engaging or disengaging a fixed component (241a/242a) and a movable component (252) arranged on a first shaft (251) extending in a first direction, the disconnection mechanism comprising: a shift fork ( “shift fork”, col.1, ll.33-54, and col. 2, ll.54-60, and col.4, ll.9-47), configured to be connected to the movable component, the shift fork being constructed to be able to reciprocate linearly in the first direction, so that the movable component is engaged with or disengaged from the fixed component; an actuator (16a; or 16a, 5 and “stroke sensor (not shown)”), comprising an eccentric output end (end of 16a received in 16 is eccentric relative to 14), the eccentric output end rotating about a rotation axis (axis of 14) of the actuator at a distance from the rotation axis; and a drive rod (16) having a first end (end of 16 receiving 16a therein) rotatably connected to the eccentric output end and a second end (16b) rotatably connected (via 9) to the shift fork, so that the eccentric output end, when rotating, is able to drive the shift fork to reciprocate linearly.
Claim 2. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 1, wherein the eccentric output end comprises an output shaft (shaft of 16a received within opening in end of 16), and the first end of the drive rod comprises an opening (opening in 16 receiving 16a therein) fitted round the output shaft.
Claim 3. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 1, further comprising a shift fork rod (9) extending in the first direction, and the shift fork being supported on a housing (3 and housing of 2) by the shift fork rod.
Claim 12. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 3, wherein the disconnection mechanism is arranged in the housing (see figs.1 and 2).
Claim 13. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 1, further comprising at least one of a first position sensor (one of 5 and “stroke sensor (not shown)”) for judging whether the output end has rotated into position, and a second position sensor (another one of 5 and “stroke sensor (not shown)”) for judging whether the shift fork has moved into position, wherein the first position sensor is arranged inside the actuator (the actuator being considered to be 82/83/75/85).
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by CN206221633.
The prior art structures bolded below appear to inherently meet the functions/properties italicized below in accordance with MPEP §2112.01(I) and MPEP §2114, which states that where the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure, the PTO may presume claimed functions/properties to be inherently capable thereto, thus presenting a prima facie case and properly shifting the burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art and provide evidence to the contrary.
Claim 1. A disconnection mechanism, for engaging or disengaging a fixed component (5) and a movable component (4) arranged on a first shaft (6) extending in a first direction, the disconnection mechanism comprising: a shift fork ( 3), configured to be connected to the movable component, the shift fork being constructed to be able to reciprocate linearly in the first direction, so that the movable component is engaged with or disengaged from the fixed component; an actuator (12), comprising an eccentric output end (end of 12 receiving 7), the eccentric output end rotating about a rotation axis (rotation axis of 12) of the actuator at a distance from the rotation axis; and a drive rod (7) having a first end (end of 7 connected to 12) rotatably connected to the eccentric output end and a second end (end of 7 connected to 16) rotatably connected (via 13/17/18) to the shift fork, so that the eccentric output end, when rotating, is able to drive the shift fork to reciprocate linearly.
Claim 3. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 1, further comprising a shift fork rod (2) extending in the first direction, and the shift fork being supported on a housing (13) by the shift fork rod.
Claim 4. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 3, wherein the shift fork has a sleeve part (sleeve part of 3, as seen in fig.3) fitted around the shift fork rod and a drive rod mounting part (16/17/18; or the part of 3 connected to 7 via 16/17/18) extending outwards from the sleeve part, the drive rod mounting part being rotatably connected to the second end of the drive rod.
Claim 5. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 4, wherein the drive rod mounting part comprises at least one arm (16, 17, 18), which is rotatably connected to the second end of the drive rod by a mounting member (hole in 16; or the bent pin end of 7 received in hole in 16).
Claim 6. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 5, wherein the drive rod mounting part comprises two arms (16, 17), so as to accommodate the second end of the drive rod between the two arms (see fig.2).
Claim 7. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 5, wherein the mounting member is a pin (bent pin end of 7 received in hole in 16).
Claims 9 and 17. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 4 (or claim 5), wherein the shift fork is fixedly connected to the shift fork rod by the sleeve part (see fig.3), and the shift fork rod is supported on the fixed structure (to any structure, see 35 U.S.C. 112 clarity rejection) in such a way as to be slideable in the first direction (see fig.4 wherein 2 is slideable in/out of 13, e.g., to facilitate assembly/disassembly).
Claims 10 and 18. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 4 (or claim 5), wherein the shift fork is supported on the shift fork rod in such a way as to be slideable in the first direction by the sleeve part (see fig.3), and the shift fork rod is fixedly connected to the fixed structure (to any structure, see 35 U.S.C. 112 clarity rejection).
Claim 12. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 3, wherein the disconnection mechanism is arranged in (at least portion 18) the housing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN206221633.
The examiner previously took Official Notice (see 2/24/2026 Office action) that it was extremely well known in the disconnection mechanism art for the shift fork to slide relative to the shift fork rod via a bush between the sleeve part of the shift fork and the shift fork rod. Applicant’s subsequent 5/22/2026 response did not adequately traverse the official notice by specifically pointed out why the noticed fact was not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Accordingly, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03C, 37 CFR 1.111(b), Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 and In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 429 (CCPA 1970). One of ordinary skill would easily recognize a fork sliding relative to a fixed rod (wherein fork movement requires no more room than the length of the fixed rod) to be more compact than a fork fixed to a sliding rod (which requires more axial room than the rod length to allow for rod sliding) and thus desirable/obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as such.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights